London Skills and Employment Board (LSEB) draft adult skills and employment strategy: London Councils’ draft response

1. Are these the right challenges for action by the Board?

**Challenge 1:** A fundamental change to the employment and skills support available for Londoners making it easier for individuals to access the help they need to move into work, and to help existing employees progress and/or develop new skills.

**Challenge 2:** An ambitious new Employer Programme for London employers (private and public) that is business focused and demonstrates the clear business benefits of workforce development, of recruiting locally, and helping out-of-work Londoners back into work.

**Challenge 3:** A new level of responsiveness from London’s learning and skills providers to ensure that skills provision is focused on meeting genuine needs.

**Challenge 4:** An integrated skills and employment infrastructure.

**Challenge 5:** Public funding for skills and employment in London aligned to the challenges and priorities identified in the draft Strategy.

London Councils broadly agrees with the five overarching challenges that the Board has set itself. However, there needs to be more emphasis on what employers can do to help alleviate worklessness. London Councils also believes the Board, whilst thinking strategically around pan-London employment and skills provision, also needs to take a bottom-up approach to delivery by building on and joining up the good practice that already exists in the capital.

Barriers to work for workless people exist on both the demand- and supply-side of London’s job market. It is a commonly cited contradiction that despite London having a proportionally high level of jobs compared to the rest of the UK(^1), it has the highest rate of worklessness. The private sector and the public sector need to work together to solve this.

Four out of five of the main challenges outlined by the Board require changes to public sector provision. Employment and training provision does need to change in order to become more effective and efficient. However, London Councils believes that barriers to work exist strongly within the private sector meaning that ‘improvements [to Jobcentre Plus] alone will not solve employment problems in London if the underlying labour market causes are left unaddressed’(^2).

Employment Zone pilots (EZ) can demonstrate a valuable lesson to this effect. At considerably more cost than Jobcentre Plus, EZs provided clients with holistic advice and guidance in order to get them into sustainable employment.(^3) While EZs had more immediate success, over the longer term the outputs equalised. Evaluation of Employment Zones concluded, ‘over longer periods, few jobs in either EZ or New Deal areas have been sustained. A key reason for poor long-term sustainability is that many jobs have been low paid and temporary’.(^4) Employment Zones demonstrate the need for not only a

______________________________________________________________________

(^1) London’s share of GB jobs is 15.5% Employment opportunity for all: tackling worklessness in London, HM Treasury, March 2007

(^2) Ibid.

(^3) Employment Zones were approximately 40 per cent more expensive than New Deal programmes per job start costs and 15 per cent more per job, but of similar cost per sustained job.

(^4) Synthesising the Evidence on Employment Zones, LGIU Policy Unit briefing, September 2007 comprehensive public sector offer, but strong in-work support from employers, to make work pay, and provide progression into higher quality and fulfilling work.

2. If not, what key things are the most important for action by the Board to improve the employment and skills of Londoners?

London Councils agrees that it needs to be made easier for individuals to access the help they need to move into work. The current situation is that clients will either move into work through Jobcentre Plus (JCP) or an independent/ or borough-led service. It is now widely acknowledged that JCP does not always provide sustainable job outcomes for those with multiple disadvantages, and that these clients need more pre- and in-work support to stay in work longer term. The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) have to some degree recognised this situation with the proposed flexible New Deal, and the White Paper ‘Opportunity, employment and progression: making skills work’. As part of the flexible New Deal and Pathways to Work, the Government has also made clear that they will be relying on the private and voluntary sector to provide much of the intensive support needed to get clients ‘job ready’.

London Councils considers that a significant change in employment and skills support is not the main issue. There are already many examples of effective employment and skills provision in London (see Appendix 2), although there are issues around a consistent quality of service. However there is no overall effective employment and skills system. To create an effective system, fundamental changes are required, and these are outlined under challenges 4 and 5; agencies and authorities being clear about their roles; joint investment planning and shared targets; more flexible funding and the right targets and incentives. Local authorities are keen to keep and expand their current role. At the moment, there is an expectation on them to ensure service provision is co-ordinated through their LSP. Local authorities are in a suitable position to provide this co-ordination as the only geographically-based local partnerships. However, some funding commissioners, such as European Social Fund and the LDA Area Programme, do not consult the relevant LSP before distributing funds in that geographic area – which obstructs the LSP’s co-ordination role.

London Councils agrees with Challenge 2: an ambitious new employer programme. The work of the London Skills and Employment Board is essential is raising the profile of worklessness issues to London employers. However, there needs to be much more recognition around what employers need to be offering to help overcome worklessness. This should mean offering more part-time and flexible working opportunities, subsidised crèches, in-work mentoring and work experience, plus a wider understanding of mental health issues and periods of ill health. Work with employers should take into account relationships that exist at a local level, using examples of best practice to help employers identify ways that they could add value to the employment and skills agenda.

The London Child Poverty Commission’s Interim report suggests incentives for employers such Investors in People or a ‘branding’ for ethical and social employment standards covering areas such as pay, work-life balance, gender and ethnic minority employment and promotion. This could encourage employers to work above the legal minima. It also suggests the introduction of Fair Procurement policies and encouraging employers to sign up to ‘living wage’ schemes that could lead to reduction of those in work but still vulnerable to poverty.

______________________________________________________________________

5 There are other issues that exist alongside these, such as pay and benefits. 6 The future of Community Regeneration Funding, London Councils and GLE, 2007 7 London Child Poverty Commission Interim report, London Councils and Greater London Authority, September 2007 Finally, the report suggests a strengthening of the measures designed to tackle discrimination at work, in particular in relation to race, gender and disability. All these measures would provide a more diverse workforce for businesses and improve retention rates.

The Jobs and Skills Pledges and Local Employment Partnerships are clearly a move in the right direction in terms developing the role of employers in decreasing worklessness and increasing skills in London. The LSEB will have to knit these agendas together with their skills and employment strategy whilst simultaneously developing actions to address specific London issues such as the lack of part-time work and low wages. Eighteen out of 33 boroughs have now signed up to a Local Employment Partnership, whilst the boroughs of Haringey, Westminster and Kingston are all engaged in changing recruitment practices to employ local, workless people. See Question 12 for more information local authorities as employers.

3. Do you agree with the Board’s ambition?

The Board’s ambition is:

The Board wants to sustain and enhance London’s successful and globally competitive labour market so that it meets the current and future needs of both employers and Londoners. It aims to do this by:

- equipping Londoners not in work with the skills they will need to get into long-term, fulfilling employment;
- supporting Londoners already in work to acquire new skills and capabilities so that they can succeed in the workforce; and
- supporting London employers to be increasingly competitive by being able to recruit local people with the right skills and by developing the skills of their existing workforce.

London Councils agrees with the Board’s three ambitions, with some reservations. Londoners do need upskilling in order to help access long-term fulfilling employment, however, they may also have other barriers that prevent them from accessing employment. The Board needs to be realistic about the starting point for many out-of-work people in London. Many have no or low educational attainment, no formal working history as well as language, housing and health needs, childcare responsibilities and confidence issues. Recent research demonstrates that Londoners are more likely to face multiple barriers to work, e.g. they are likely to have a combination of needs listed above. Therefore, tackling skills in isolation may not be enough to get workless Londoners into long-term fulfilling employment, but should be part of a wider support package.

It is important that the development of skills must not be seen in the context of just getting a job but also longer-term prospects. Many low-skilled, workless Londoners only have access to jobs that are low paid and low status with no security and few benefits. Government can and should offer financial incentives and support to get people into work, but the Board and employers should strive towards a greater understanding of the needs of employees, and to encourage provision of in-work support in order to make employment opportunities sustainable. London Councils agrees with the Board’s suggestion of supporting employees already in work and would also like to hear more about any plans to provide incentives to employers, in exchange for them taking up aspects of the strategy.

______________________________________________________________________

8 In London 30 per cent of individuals face two or more key barriers to work, in the rest of the country the proportion is lower at 23 per cent. Source: Employment Opportunity for all: tackling worklessness in London, HM Treasury, March 2007 London Councils agrees that employers should be supported to recruit local people who present with the right skills set, and that they should develop the skills of their workforce and provide flexibility to employees around health and childcare issues. The public sector as employers can help with the Board's ambitions in this respect, and London Councils would like to work with the Board in rolling out this agenda to London boroughs.

4. Are these the right supporting targets?

- Reduce the proportion of Londoners with no qualifications to 11% by 2013, focusing particularly on improving functional literacy and numeracy.
- Increase the proportion of the employed workforce engaged in training to 15% by 2013.
- A target to cover progression to higher skills.

(please refer to the strategy for more information on targets http://www.london.gov.uk/lseb/docs/proposalboardstrategy.pdf)

London Councils agrees these are targets are appropriate but would like to see commitments around narrowing the gaps between the employment rate for London’s most disadvantaged groups and London’s average employment rate. Similarly there needs to be a concentration on spatial areas of high worklessness, and closing the gap between these and other areas in the capital with average employment rates. However, the Board should be aware that these targets can often be problematic due to the high level of population churn in disadvantaged areas. The targets should also tie in with those in the National Indicator set that will become part of the next round of Local Area Agreements from next year. Of these, there are many that fall in with the remit of the Board including three worklessness targets, one child poverty indicator and five adult skills targets.9

London Councils strongly agrees that there should be targets around the employment rate of key disadvantaged groups such as BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic), women and disabled people. However, there are other at-risk groups that should be included in monitoring, such as lone parents, where the employment rate in London has not seen the same increase as the rest of the UK.10 The employment rate for those in social housing is also particularly high11, to measure the progress of this group would be a useful indicator in terms of reaching those with greater needs.

5. If not, what alternative targets would you suggest?

In addition to the points raised under Question 4, qualitative indicators should also include employers’ awareness around offering work placements and/or apprenticeship schemes, flexible working and part-time work and issues around low pay.

When measuring employment rate it is important to capture the sustainability of those entering work. It should be a key aim that employment is sustainable as this will translate into

______________________________________________________________________

9 See ‘The New Performance Framework for Local Authorities & Local Authority Partnerships: Single Set of National Indicators’, Department for Communities and Local Government, October 2007 10 43% of lone parents are in work in London compared to 58% in the UK. See London Child Poverty Commission Interim report, London Councils and Greater London Authority, September 2007 11 47% of people in socially rented housing are economically inactive, compared with 18% in owner occupied housing and 22% of those renting privately. See ‘A profile of Londoners by housing tenure:Analysis of Annual Population Survey & Labour Force Survey data’, GLA Economics, September 2007 savings for both employers in terms of recruitment costs and public sector in terms of benefits and associated ‘revolving door’ costs. Targets should measure those entering employment how many are still in work within 3, 6 and 12 months. This does not necessarily have to be the same job, but employment cannot be considered sustainable if there are periods of unemployment within the year.

6. Do you agree with the priorities and actions in this chapter for improving the support and services available to individuals to improve their skills and employment opportunities?

**Priority 1: Changing the aspirations and behaviours of young people and adults so that they are more motivated and confident that they can fulfil their potential through the skills and employment system**

**Action 1.1: An engagement campaign directed at individuals and those working in the delivery system**

A campaign alone will not change the aspiration and behaviour of people to go out and improve their skills or get a job might unless it is backed up by real changes in both the public sector offer and the experience of work.

Many people that are currently workless will have tried to get into work before. These experiences, compounded by the difficulty of getting back on to benefits if people become unemployed, represent negative associations around ‘getting back to work’. The draft strategy demonstrates a good understanding of some of the barriers that prevent Londoners from getting into work. If it can be demonstrated that changes have been made so that barriers previously encountered can be more effectively overcome, then this will have more of a positive effect on the confidence, motivation and behaviour of workless people than just a campaign.

The provision of better advice and information at the right time is also key. The right time might be when people are most vulnerable to unemployment – this includes post education, relationship breakdown and leaving prison or the armed services. Providing integrated advice about skills and training provision, childcare, housing and benefits at these key stages will equip people with the information they need to make educated decisions about the employment options that best suit their needs.

Clients will also need robust better-off calculations in order to assess their financial situation in work. This is particularly true of parents and lone parents where there may be complex variables around out of work and in work benefits. The Haringey Guarantee recently successfully requested an enabling measure via the DWP to obtain the Jobcentre Plus’ IBIS software that carries out better-off calculations. These facilities should be available to all employment and skills services.

Furthermore clients need assurance that not only will going back to work leave them better off in the short term, but also for the foreseeable future. Tax credit awards, for example, are calculated based on earnings from the previous year. When a person moves into employment, this often means that they are better off in the first year of work as they receive a significant award based on the £0 income from the previous year. However, boroughs report that it is in the 2nd year of employment when problems can arise as the tax credit amount reduces (due to the salary in year 1). This can ‘tip the scales’ where low income households may not be as ‘better off’ as they were the year before. In terms of the

______________________________________________________________________

12 Revolving door is a term that describes those who enter work and then leave in quick succession. commitment to clients not ending when they are in work, towards the end of year 1 employment services need to make contact with clients to make them aware of their change in circumstances and how to plan for different financial circumstances.

Better off calculations also need to take into account all costs associated with moving into work, including the loss of free school meals, transport costs, childcare costs – not just nursery but also extended school fees. For many people, moving off benefits and into work may only make them £10 or £20 better off per week so any extra expenses could make their new working situation untenable and put themselves and any children at risk. Calculations should also take into account housing costs and council tax.

**Priority 2** Improving information, advice and guidance to point people in the right direction and provide them with the support they need to find and stay in work

**Action 2.1: Develop an effective London careers advice service**

The lack of detail on the careers and advice service makes it difficult to comment. It is important that the service has a physical presence in areas of high worklessness, and that its remit alongside JCP, local authorities and the voluntary sector provision is clear. The service would have to build on some of the local advice and guidance that already exists if it is of sufficient quality. A pan-London careers service would need to know what services and opportunities were available in a specific locality, and have a delivery arm to provide advice and referrals. It would also have to recognise that London is not homogenous and that there are different skills and employment issues in different areas. Furthermore, much of the information, advice and guidance (IAG) is currently provided by local colleges in order to market their own courses – it is crucial that brokers provide impartial information. Local authorities should be involved in the development of a careers service as they have detailed knowledge of employment and skills provision on the ground. It may be more effective for the LSEB to scale-up existing IAG provision by issuing funding with a guiding set up principles.

As suggested in Challenge 4, there would need to be shared data between the Learning and Skills Council, JCP and the local labour market to make this a seamless service for clients. If the advice aspired to be truly holistic, information on overcoming other barriers to work, such as benefits, childcare and housing, would be need to be built in. This could use the expertise of local authority services. Lessons learnt from the City Strategy pilots will be valuable, particularly the vision of the City Strategy to offer a more strategic overview of services and eradicate the current fragmented delivery.

Finally, a careers service of this kind would require significant resource – which there has currently been no commitment to.

**Priority 3** Improving pre-employment training and support, giving priority to communities that are typically excluded from skills and employment

**Action 3.1: Tailor pre-employment training and support to individual's needs, improving work readiness by offering skills and job search help**

**Action 3.2: Target people with severe barriers to employment such as people for whom English is a second language, offenders and ex-offenders and people with learning difficulties and/or disabilities**

As outlined under Question 2, London Councils believes there are already many examples of good practice in employment and skills provision in London (see Appendix 2), which, in line with different funding regulations, usually give priority to those typically excluded from skills and employment. The Board needs to investigate which schemes are currently being delivered on the ground, as borough- and voluntary-sector-led pre-employment training and support will most likely have to demonstrate that it is tailored to an individual's needs. Due to an overall reduction in Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (or Working Neighbourhoods Fund) local authorities will have to work smarter and more joined up – both with each other and with regional government – in order to deliver employment and skills provision in the future.

In light of many pre-existing employment and skills projects, the issue should not be the creation of more, but the feasibility of rolling out current good practice. Joint investment planning through the pooling of resources, such as LDA, LSC, JCP and ESF, would break the cycle of chasing small pots of funding. Furthermore, increasing funding cycles to three years minimum would increase the feasibility and stability of many employment and skills projects. Also acknowledged by both the Board and local authorities is the small scale of some of these successful projects. Joint planning needs to have the capacity to upscale projects to give a wider reach and higher potential outputs, whilst receiving cost and efficiency benefits of economies of scale. It is crucial that joint working is genuine, to avoid similar projects being commissioned by different departments or partner organisations working in isolation.

Boroughs are well placed to deliver projects that target communities excluded from skills and employment provision. Recent research showed that local authorities used their knowledge of the needs of local communities to ‘fill in the gaps’ between mainstream employment and skills providers. London Borough of Greenwich’s ‘Work for Families’ project, for example, aims to help lone parent families overcome barriers to employment. Support is provided through an advisory team made up of advisors from the Children’s Information Service, Jobcentre Plus and GLLaB (Greenwich Local Labour and Business run by Greenwich Council). A total of 403 individuals have been supported through the WfF’s project with 50 percent of those from Neighbourhood Renewal areas. Local authorities are therefore well placed to deliver and commission employment and skills projects that target the needs of excluded people in their community.

Local authorities are increasingly using joint working across all their services to provide a seamless employment and skills service for clients. London Councils is currently undertaking research to gauge the extent of cross-service working. Anecdotal evidence suggests that representatives such as those from children’s services, the primary care trust, and housing are working together on LAA worklessness sub groups. Given local authorities’ scope, in terms of strategic management of housing in their area, benefits, health etc, boroughs should be encouraged by Government and funders to increase the amount of holistic end-to-end support they provide. Greenwich’s ‘Work for Health’ uses the expertise of Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust and GRETA (Greenwich Education & Training Advice for Adults) to support people experiencing mental health problems to overcome barriers to employment. Both projects work closely with Jobcentre Plus (see Appendix 2 for more information on both projects).

Finally, a redesign of services is needed to provide advice and job search opportunities for those being released from prison or custody. There should be a clear link to the work of Government Office for London’s Resettlement Board in the provision of services for this group.

**Priority 4: Helping employers and training providers to join forces to develop good quality programmes to ensure employability and advancement for Londoners**

______________________________________________________________________

13 The Future of Community Regeneration Funding, London Councils and GLE, 2007 **Action 4.1:** Employers to work collaboratively with training providers to develop good quality programmes in key sectors

**Action 4.2:** More extensive use of work-based learning and skills development including much better promotion of apprenticeships

**Priority 5:** Enabling individuals to develop their Skills

**Action 5.1:** Creating effective arrangements to enable adults – in work and out of work – to improve their skills

The availability and promotion of work-based learning, skills development and apprenticeships is crucial to getting workless Londoners into sustainable employment. All low skilled individuals who have accessed employment through JCP should be offered free training under Train to Gain or apprenticeships. The Board should explore the possibility of subsidising or incentivising employers, perhaps through tax benefits, to take on people that may not have worked before or for long periods of time. The London Child Poverty Commission have suggested incentives for employers and their service suppliers that include a ‘branding’ for ethical and social employment standards.14

Work experience placements are a low risk step to getting people back to work for the employers, who get a ‘spare pair of hands’ whilst getting to know the claimant and the claimant gets to ‘try out work’ without losing benefits. Even if the outcome is not an employment placement through the work experience provider, work experience should lead to an increase in confidence and more opportunity to find work with another employer.

In terms of local authorities as employers, 18 are already negotiating Local Employment Partnerships with Jobcentre Plus, and London Councils is currently working with the London LSC on a pilot with 4 South London boroughs to identify how best the Train to Gain service can be tailored to enable local authorities to take up the offer. As part of this pilot they have agreed to sign the Skills Pledge. London Borough of Kingston has been working with Somerset County Council to extract best practice information on committing to the Jobs Pledge. However, there is still plenty more local authorities can and should be doing in terms of offering work experience and upskilling their workforce. London Councils will work with Jobcentre Plus, the LSC and the LSEB to encourage London boroughs to develop their employment policies in line with the proposals for employers in the draft strategy.

7. **What further priorities and actions would you suggest?** All points made as part of question 6.

8. **Do you agree with the priorities and actions in this chapter for involving more employers in London’s employment and skills challenges?**

**Priority 1:** Working with employers to tackle London’s skills and employment challenges

**Action 1.1:** Develop a new London Employer Programme including a new top-notch brokerage service

**Action 1.2** Employers to lead the way in employee training and development

London Councils agrees with Priority 1, specifically it believes that employers should play a role in the design and engagement of pre-employment training. As outlined under Question 6, work experience and placements should be offered by all employers as a meaningful work taster. However, the public sector needs to be able to provide a continuation of benefits and access to childcare for those who need it in order for people to access work experience.

______________________________________________________________________

14 For more information see Question 2 and London Child Poverty Commission Interim Report, London Councils and GLA, September 2007 London Councils sees it is particularly important that employers change their recruitment processes in order to employ those who may have been out of work long term or may have never had a job before. Lewisham Borough Council, for example, run a Construction Related Skills programme which aims to employ people that the industry wouldn't normally, such as women and BAME communities. Targeted at local residents, trainees attend 3 days a week over 6 months to develop skills and provide job opportunities.

A new London Employer Programme should hold information on good practice in employer-led employment and skills programmes and disseminate this to a wide range of employers. Such a programme should make a business case around the benefits of employing local, workless people, as well as promoting apprenticeships, in-work training, part-time and flexible working opportunities, and awareness raising around discrimination and childcare issues. The Programme should be fully integrated with the Pan-London Job Brokerage Network as well as the London Accord, Local Employment Partnerships and Jobs and Skills Pledges. The London Employer Programme should have strong links to Jobcentre Plus, the Learning and Skills Council, Business Link for London and local authorities.

Finally, London Councils considers it key that a new London Employer Programme would have a stream of work that encouraged employers to look at their supply chain and encourage similar behaviour. As outlined under Question 2, if there was a kind of ‘branding’ for ethical and social employment standards employers could demand such standards from their supply chain, or at least declare a preference for such suppliers. Similarly this might work with companies that take up the idea of a Living Wage (referred to under Question 2). London Councils is keen to work with the LSEB to investigate how London boroughs can use their procurement functions in this way and be supported to do this.

**Priority 2: Strengthen the capacity of Sector Skills Councils to respond effectively to London’s skills and employment issues**

**Action 2.1:** Promote the engagement of London employers with their Sector Skills Council

**Action 2.2:** Ensure Sector Skills Councils have the capacity and support to be responsive to London’s needs

London Councils agrees with these action points, however it would like to raise the issue that a significant number of large employers are not necessarily represented by a Sector Skills Council (SSC). Local authorities for example, who employ around 250,622(^{15}) people across London, no longer have their own Sector Skills Council, and are in the position of having some employees covered by existing SSCs, and some who are covered by none.

Contrary to the general findings in the London Story(^{16}), London local authorities are already facing severe skills shortages in many areas, including transport, planning, environmental health, trading standards and social work. These shortages have created a vicious circle whereby there are not enough staff to support in-house development and training, so fewer trainees and young staff are coming through the system, and the skills gaps are widening. In areas where work experience is an integral requirement of certain qualifications, the problem is accentuated. Early consideration should be given as to how financial and in-house training resource shortages can be addressed within the overall strategy. In some cases this may involve an increase in cross-sectoral cooperation.

______________________________________________________________________

(^{15}) Local Government Employment Survey, 2005

(^{16}) Globalisation, skill and employment: The London story, London Skills and Employment Board, October 2007 9. What further priorities and actions would you suggest? Further points addressed under Question 8.

10. Do you agree with the priorities and actions in this chapter for creating an education and skills system for the future?

**Priority 1:** Ensure provision is aimed at employability and progression

**Action 1.1:** Improve the further education offer for adults to promote a focus on employability and progression

**Action 1.2:** Improved employer involvement with the delivery of higher-level skills in London to produce graduates with the skills the London economy needs

**Action 1.3:** Support actions to widen participation in higher education

London Councils agrees there should be much closer working between Further Education (FE) colleges and employers to ensure training and skills are relevant to the current and future workforce. However, in order to get out of work people into work, particularly those who experience multiple barriers to work, skills development should not be seen in isolation of other needs.

As the strategy acknowledges there is a concentration on the achievement of qualifications over and above the achievement of skills needed for work. Further Education colleges need to engage with local authorities through Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) in order to identify the needs of local workless people and local employers. English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) provision should be available to higher standards and linked to vocational training opportunities. Clients who have been out of work for a number of years or who have never worked before are also likely to require support in softer skills such as confidence building.

London Councils agrees that improving participation and attainment for under 19s is crucial for improving worklessness rates in London. Specifically, the delivery of 16-19 education should take into account of the local labour and skills market and the LSEB should work on the availability of entry level jobs for school leavers who are not likely to have work experience at this stage. Furthermore, the strategy does not take into account the implications of the current 14-19 developments in London, which aim to tackle some of the issues it raises, such as the introduction of specialised diplomas with an emphasis on work-based learning and job readiness.

Critically, London Councils would not welcome the LSEB taking a strategic role for 16-19 education in London after funding responsibilities have been transferred from the LSC to local authorities. The Department for Children, Schools and Families' decision to bring 16-19 funding under the control of local authorities (who already have a statutory duty to deliver 14-16 education) marks a move towards ensuring a more coherent delivery process for the 14-19 reforms and education offer for young people. London Councils has a regional overview of the 14-19 reforms in London, working in partnership with key stakeholders including LSC and Government Office for London, and is currently looking at pan-London issues through the London 14-19 Executive Group. London Councils would be keen to work with the LSEB to contribute strategic information around the 16-19 education agenda and listen to employers’ feedback.

**Priority 2:** Promoting innovation in delivery of services

**Action 2.1:** New ways of involving employers and others in governing further and higher education **Action 2.2: Opening up of the publicly funded learning and skills market**

Opening up the publicly funded learning and skills market is likely to contribute to the already crowded picture of employment and skills provision on the ground. As mentioned above, there is already a lot of effective provision available, so the priority should be to focus on getting all existing services up to scratch and scaling up good practice. Delivery of current projects is also being hindered by a lack of flexibility in what mainstream providers such as Jobcentre Plus can offer, or by a lack of flexibility and joined up working with smaller funding streams. Effective provision is also not being scaled up because of a lack of resources and insecurity around funding cycles. London Councils considers that helping to overcome these issues would have a more positive effect on provision than opening up the market.

11. What further priorities and actions would you suggest? Addressed under question 10.

12. Do you agree with the priorities and actions in this chapter for integrating employment and skills delivery systems?

**Priority 1: A unified employment and skills system focused on providing long-term employment for all Londoners**

**Action 1.1:** The key agencies and authorities commit to working in an integrated and co-ordinated way through regional level targets, joint commissioning of programmes and joint investment planning

**Action 1.2:** Promote integration at a local level through planning agreements, local area agreements and other arrangements which link the support of employment and skills action with regeneration and other policies

**Action 1.3:** London Development Agency to set up a London skills observatory to provide better information on skills needs (now and future) to help public and private providers to plan

The confusion a client experiences when accessing employment and skills support is the result of ‘a lack of co-ordination between funding bodies, and a lack of consultation with boroughs about the picture of service provision on the ground’. Local authorities are increasingly seen as ‘place shapers’ and have a thorough knowledge of the needs of the workless people in their localities. Through their Local Area Agreements (LAA), local authorities ‘fill in the gaps’ in mainstream services by providing end-to-end employability support, tackling barriers such as childcare, health and disability. However, LAAs are unable to pool much of the cocktail of funding that is available, such as London Development Agency funding and the various ESF co-financers. Furthermore, the vast majority of resources to address worklessness are channelled through the Government’s preferred supplier – JCP who sub-contract with national organisations. There is very limited opportunity for LAAs to influence how this resource is used or to bid for contracts.

London Councils, therefore, strongly agrees with the need for key agencies and authorities to commit to working in an integrated and co-ordinated way. Joint investment planning should be directed at employment and skills services that are already proven to be working successfully or need increased funding to keep operating or to scale up. Consistent funding rules, including longer funding cycles, as well as shared data and joint priorities, will all be necessary in order to achieve a successful joint investment plan.

London Councils believes that many of the priorities raised in the LSEB draft strategy are also current priorities for Local Area Agreements. Indeed, the inclusion of three worklessness

______________________________________________________________________

17 The future of community regeneration funding, London Councils and GLE, 2007 targets, one child poverty indicator and five adults skills targets as part of the New Performance Framework for local authorities suggest there may be an even stronger focus on worklessness.\\textsuperscript{18} Local authorities will need to focus on these targets and direct available funding towards them. There is no reference to Government Office for London in the LSEB draft strategy who are instrumental in the development of local priorities and should be fully engaged with the strategy.

In the light of the Local Government White Paper, London Councils would like to see the proposed ‘duty to cooperate’\\textsuperscript{19} on the Learning and Skills Council and Jobcentre Plus included in their joint investment plan. Furthermore, London Councils considers, as the draft strategy suggests, that integration should be promoted at a local level – particularly with a view to spending by the London Development Agency and ESF co-financers.

Finally, London Councils fully supports the integration of health, childcare, housing and transport issues into both Local Area Agreements, and Multi Area Agreements (if established in London), as well as at regional and existing sub-regional levels.

13. What further priorities and actions would you suggest?

London Councils also supports the establishment of a London Skills observatory, which would be a helpful tool both for improving adult skills and those of young people. This should include data at a local authority and ward level to ensure effective targeting of resources. It should also monitor the performance of employment and skills providers. It would be useful to take into account intelligence requirements around the delivery of 14-19 reforms in London when setting up the observatory.

14. Do you support the priorities and actions in this chapter for making the public sector system work for London?

\\textbf{Priority 1: Sharpening the Government’s incentive and target system to improve skills and employment outcomes for Londoners}

\\textbf{Action 1.1: Develop a more flexible funding and target system for skills and employment delivery and funding agencies to ensure they focus on getting people into long-term employment and progression}

London Councils welcomes the LSEB proposals to improve the incentive and target system in London, where national policies to improve skills and employment outcomes for Londoners are proving less effective.

London Councils also welcomes the new flexibilities around the 16-hour rule outlined under the DWP white paper ‘Opportunity, employment and progression: making skills work’. A bridging fund should still be considered to support those moving from out of work to in work benefits. This would cover temporary shortfalls in late benefit payments as well as shortfalls in childcare or transport costs. The fund could provide small emergency grants or low interest loans that would be paid back when the client reaches stability in work.

London Councils would also welcome more detail from the LSEB around incentives and targets for employers to improve skills and employment outcomes. Proposals around

\\textsuperscript{18} See ‘The New Performance Framework for Local Authorities & Local Authority Partnerships: Single Set of National Indicators’, Department for Communities and Local Government, October 2007

\\textsuperscript{19} There is a requirement on key public agencies to ‘cooperate’ with local authorities in developing and delivering their Community Strategies and Local Area Agreements. incentive payments for employers for providing training, or business rate reductions in exchange for taking up aspects of the strategy should be explored. Incentives for employers should not be developed without education for employers around the benefits of being engaged with the employment and skills agenda. A strong business case should be built up to appeal to both Corporate Social Responsibility and business functions.

Boroughs have indicated to London Councils that the Train to Gain service is too focused on qualifications (eg testing competence) rather than supporting skills development, and there is a lack of resources and priority given within authorities to undertaking significant skills audits to identify the gaps. There has also been criticism of the lack of flexibility around LSC funding – which is overly focused on achieving qualifications as opposed to obtaining employment. London Borough of Brent, for example, provide ESOL (English to Speakers of Other Languages) training as part of their work-focused Language2Work scheme (see Appendix 2). The LSC were unable to fund the project because it did not lead to a qualification, despite placing over a 1000 people in to employment.

15. What further priorities and actions would you suggest? All points indicated under question 14.

## Appendix 1: Local Authority examples of good practice in employment and skills provision

| Borough / Project name | Project overview | Motivation | Target group | Money Spent / funding | Time Frame / project start date | Success Rate | Further Information | |------------------------|------------------|------------|--------------|------------------------|---------------------------------|--------------|---------------------| | City of London | Spitalfields Employment Project | Support residents in overcoming the barriers they face to accessing employment, education and training | The wards that constitute the Spitalfields area experience some of the highest levels of unemployment in the Greater London. | Unemployed local residents in Spitalfields area | The project is joint-funded by the City of London Corporation and SDG, the partnership which re-developed the old Spitalfields Market | Established January 2006 Duration: at least two to three years | Supported 92 people into employment or more appropriate employment and 104 people through employment preparation courses | | Brent | Brent in2 work | Works with over 40 local employers to support local residents into work | High levels of unemployment and economic inactivity in Brent – Brent in2 work also prevents organisations with similar goals competing for clients, employer access and funding grants. | Local residents. Over 75% of residents supported are from BAME groups, with a significant number living in more deprived neighbourhoods. | Since 2002, it has supported around 2,500 residents into work. In 2006/07 it supported over 1,000 into work and a further 1,000 into learning. Since 2002, claimant levels have decreased by over 18%. | http://www.brentin2work.co.uk/ | | Brent | Language in2 work | Serves the growing number of Brent residents that do not speak English as a first language. The project focuses upon the skills needed for searching, obtaining and keeping employment. | Brent is the most ethnically diverse borough in the country with over 130 different languages spoken. The borough also has the highest proportion of people born outside the EU. Lack of ESOL courses in the borough. Entry levels on existing English language courses are too high | Growing number of local residents of different ages and backgrounds that do not speak English as a first language. | The course is an intensive (6 week), holistic, language programme. Once clients have left the course they also receive ongoing support for a 13 week period (or longer as needed) | In 2006-2007, 150 people accessed the project and of these, 65 have found work. Over 40% of clients find work through the programme and 85% are still in work after 13 weeks. The project itself has a 95% retention rate. | | Lewisham Construction Related Skills (CRS) Training Centre | Builds opportunities and trade skills for all and addresses the construction industry's need to increase the participation of those under-represented in the sector especially women and BAME communities | Addresses the construction industry's need to increase the participation of those under-represented in the sector | Local residents, particularly those under-represented in the sector especially women and BAME communities | Trainees attend 3 days a week over 6 months. | Email: crs@lewisham.gov.uk | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | Lewisham Opening Doors (1) | Assisting lone parents into sustained employment. 1:1 careers advice and mentoring, with an individual action/training plan. Employability workshops and job search coaching. Support with developing IT skills for work and job search | To assist the Council to meet the LPSA target as agreed with the Government, for the number of lone parents supported into sustained employment from April 2005 – March 2008. | Jobless lone parents – people that are aged 16 or over, have a dependent child under 16 and are not working or working less than 16 hours per week | | Email: openingdoors@lewisham.gov.uk | | Lewisham Opening Doors (2) | Opening Doors has successfully delivered a 2 year LSC/ESF co-financed project to provide information, advice and guidance to adults who are economically inactive | Need to tackle the many issues faced by those seeking employment | Adults over 50 who are economically inactive | Learning and Skills Council / European Social Fund co-financed project | Opening Doors has successfully delivered a 2 year LSC / ESF co-financed project to provide information, advice and guidance to adults | Email: openingdoors@lewisham.gov.uk | | **Haringey** | **Haringey Guarantee** | **Lambeth** | **Employment and Skills Plan** | **Westminster** | **Paddington First** | **Bexley** | **Knowing Bexley** | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | **Haringey Guarantee** | Haringey Council’s flagship programme to tackle worklessness. Employs a new and innovative approach to building pathways to sustained employment. | Need to deliver the LAA worklessness stretch targets | Unemployed local residents who already have skills that are required by employers | The Guarantee brings together £1 million of Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF) and Council funding (to March 2008). | Established in April 2006 | The current programme aims to support and engage over 1,000 residents and move over 250 people into sustained employment. | http://www.haringey.gov.uk/index/business/haringeyguarantee.htm | | **Lambeth Employment and Skills Plan** | Improves outcomes for people who experience difficulty in accessing and staying in work | Established to meet the goal of a 70% employment rate by 2012 | Target groups are: those unemployed and on Incapacity Benefit or Job Seekers’ Allowance in deprived neighbourhoods, those with the lowest qualifications in specific wards, specific communities including Black Caribbean, Black African, mixed Race White and Caribbean, over 50s, and lone parents. | | | | | | **Westminster Paddington First** | Paddington First is a local jobs brokerage service for local employers working to place local people in employment. | Unemployed local residents | | Set up in 1999 | Work has been found for over 5,000 people since the project was established | | http://www.paddingtonfirst.co.uk/ | | **Bexley Knowing Bexley** | Provide improvements and conditions in which knowledge based businesses can become established and local people equipped with the skills to access the jobs being generated | Unemployment remains higher than the national average in the northern wards of Bexley. The low degree of high tech employment, low business formation rate and fewer management or | Local workforce and job seekers | | | | 5 year plan | | The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea | The Recruitment Department, working across the local authority and its partners, hosting arrangements for sub-contractors. Personnel enable managers to attract the right candidates for our jobs through advertising, campaigns, recruitment fairs, web based advertising etc. | Working towards reaching Level 5 of the Equality Standard by 2008 | Targets to promote equality and combat discrimination across the local authority | Working with local and sub-regional employers for more than 8 years | | Newham Workplace - Employment One Stop Shops | Provides services relating to recruitment, jobs, training and business support. Workplace brings together a range of providers in a single location to offer seamless, integrated, readily accessible and user-friendly services to both employers and jobseekers | The benefit claim rates in Newham are consistently above the London average, and 21% of the borough's current unemployed population have never worked. | • Individuals seeking employment • Individuals seeking to start up their own enterprise • Businesses seeking advice and information on developing their business • Businesses seeking to fill a vacancy or vacancies | To date (October 2007), Workplace has placed over 260 people into jobs in a range of sectors including construction, hospitality, retail, customer service, leisure. | www.newhamworkplace.co.uk | | Newham | Mayor’s Employment (Pilot Plan) | The Pilot offers intensive support for long term unemployed residents | The benefit claim rates in Newham are consistently above the London average, and 21% of the borough’s current unemployed population have never worked. | Long term unemployed people living in a household where Housing Benefit is claimed, especially people who have never worked. The Pilot will also help people who have been unemployed for 1 year plus (whatever benefits they’re claiming) especially people who have never worked. | |---|---|---|---|---| | Enfield | One Large Intervention – an innovative approach to address child poverty and make families more prosperous - break down barriers to employment and address worklessness. | High levels of worklessness and child poverty in specific areas. Very high rises in Incapacity Benefit claimants | 5 disadvantaged groups identified | ‘Every Child really does matter’ has been the theme of the LAA. Pan London NRF/ESF joint financed programme across 10 boroughs | | Greenwich | Work for Family (WFF) | The project aims to help lone parent families overcome barriers to employment. Offer support through an advisory team made up of advisors from the Children’s Information Service, Jobcentre Plus and GLLaB (Greenwich Local Labour and | Lone parent families | A total of 403 individuals have been supported through the WFF’s project 50% of those supported by the project to date have been from Neighbourhood Renewal areas A total of 301 lone parents have been | | Greenwich Work for Health (WFH) | The purpose of the project is to support those experiencing mental health problems overcome barriers to employment. The project supports participants through an advisory team made up of advisors from Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust, Jobcentre Plus, Greta and GLLaB. There is also | Residents experiencing mental health problems who are in receipt of a health related benefit | supported with information, advice/guidance or funding in relation to childcare, employment or training A total of 300 individuals have been supported with employment action plans through JCP & GLLaB A total of 207 lone parents have been supported with employment action plans 7 lone parents have been supported through the Childcare Support Fund | | Southwark | Southwark Works | Southwark Works helps people into sustainable work and targets particular disadvantaged groups that face additional barriers to employment. Specialist employment advisers are hosted by partner organisations including social services, education, hospitals, libraries, training and employment providers and community organisations, to ensure employment and training services are taken directly to the client. | High levels of unemployment and economic inactivity. | Long term unemployed and economically inactive residents. Advisers specialise in the following areas: Health; Incapacity Benefit; mental health; learning difficulties; refugees; young people leaving council care; drug and alcohol misuse (for ex-offenders); single parents and childcare. | Majority NRF funded, also LDA and GoL. | Programme started in 2004. | Over 3,600 people have been assisted by the programme. Over 1,320 were helped into training and over 440 have found work. | The programme is supported by the Southwark worklessness multi agency initiative. Members include Southwark Council, Government Office for London, London Development Agency, Learning and Skills Council, Jobcentre Plus, Aylesbury NDC, South London and Maudsley Hospital. | | Bexley | Matching People and Jobs | Project provides customised training, advice, work experience and job search to local residents who are unemployed or under employed | Address the employability agenda and break down multiple barriers to unemployment. Delivery is targeted to maximise employability and access to further | Targeted at any unemployed (registered or not) or underemployed resident. | Funded via LDA and Bexley Council | Project established in 2003 | Project is extremely successful and supports 250+ year on year into employment. Enables 450 residents to gain qualifications. | [http://www.bexley.gov.uk/service/resources_plus/index.html](http://www.bexley.gov.uk/service/resources_plus/index.html) | | **Bexley Talking Business** | Project upskills existing employee in Bexley area leading to job change or career progression | Addresses the higher level skills shortages in Bexley and supports companies to invest in their staff development whilst being able to fill higher level jobs with right calibre of labour | Local businesses who seek to fill internal vacancies with higher skilled staff or seek to increase staff skills | Funded by LDA, Bexley Council and local businesses | Project established 2003 | Supports 250 businesses per annum | Train 500 employees per annum | [http://www.bexley.gov.uk/service/resources_plus/index.html](http://www.bexley.gov.uk/service/resources_plus/index.html) | | **Bexley Resources** | Local labour scheme for Bexley delivery job brokerage advice and guidance and supports employers in recruitment and selection | Addresses access to employment for both unemployed and employed local residents borough-wide | All job seekers, employed or unemployed | Funded via the LDA and Bexley Council | Established in 2003 | 300 into jobs per annum | [http://www.bexley.gov.uk/service/resources_plus/index.html](http://www.bexley.gov.uk/service/resources_plus/index.html) | | **Bexley Jobnet** | Accountable body for Jobnet – runs over 5 boroughs: Bexley, Lewisham, Redbridge, Havering and Barking & Dagenham and provides local labour solutions and shared vacancies. Shares expertise and undertakes joint recruitment drives plus pooled intelligence | Increased access to local employment, breaking down barriers to employment | Jobseekers in 5 boroughs | Funded via the LDA, 5 boroughs and some local partnership delivery mechanisms. | April 2006 | 1500 jobs per annum | [http://www.jobnet.org.uk](http://www.jobnet.org.uk) | | **Tower Hamlets Skillsmatch** | Skillsmatch is the Council’s Job brokerage team offering a comprehensive service to both local | The significant increase in job opportunities in Tower Hamlets now offers at least 2 jobs for every | All job seekers and workless residents, with a particular emphasis on young people in view of the extremely young | External funding has been successfully secured to around £600,000 a year – including NRF, augmented by | Project established in 1997 in partnership with Canary Wharf Group | Skillsmatch support 600 local residents into employment each year. 73% are BAME | [http://www.jobnet.org.uk](http://www.jobnet.org.uk) | | Job seekers and employers. Negotiations with employers right from the point of planning agreements on all local developments ensures a chance to secure appropriate job vacancies for local people. Innovative programmes such as the award winning (National Training Award) transitional programmes help provide no risk solutions. Job seekers are offered pre-employment support through a partnership approach of the Employment Task Group. Skillmatch are the ‘hub’ for the BOOST Olympic programme. Currently developing a construction training centre offering modular site ready skills training with associated job brokerage. This will be located within Wood Wharf – a large mixed use major development programme and will be developed so it can move to future economically active resident. However the employment rate is still the worst in the country. The Skillmatch team develop and promote effective employer links and engagement and screen and match local job seekers to appropriate jobs. Sustainability of employment is a key factor. Current Welfare to Work Programmes offer around 50% sustainability after 13 weeks, the Skillmatch team have consistently achieved 80% sustainability at 13 and 26 weeks and growing population. The service reflects the diversity of the population with a high number of BAME clients (around 70%) Skillmatch and the wider Partnership of the Employment Task Group is offering a £2m pilot programme (until March 09) through the City Strategy Pilot to offer workless families and families with NEET young people or people at risk of becoming NEET more support and effective pathways to employment. | Mainstream Council budgets. Past external funds include SRB, ESF, Action Teams and LDA funds. | Clients, 61% female, 49% male. 60% were under 25. Sustainability is a consistent 80% measured at 13 and 26 weeks. Examples of success – work with Credit Suisse on the transitional programmes resulted in over 28 placements secured – 18 have already been offered permanent employment with Credit Suisse. Through the wider Employment Task Group, the Tower Project, a local voluntary group offer a dedicated programme for disabled job seekers – 48 have been assisted into employment over the last year. A range of employer led pre-employment training programmes offered by TH College to the financial sector has significantly increased the number of BAME financial advisers – | | Tower Hamlets Employment task Group | The Employment task Group was established to provide a strategic overview of the needs of workless residents in order to shape the work of the LSP and oversee NRF. Representatives include: LB Tower Hamlets, JCP, Tower Hamlets College, Education Business partnership, Leaside Regeneration, LDA, LSC, Connexions. The partnership offer innovative pathways to employment complimentary to mainstream JCP and LSC services. | The Task Group have 'ownership' of the Regeneration Strategy and the LAA indicators relating to employment | Target groups in line with priorities in Regeneration Strategy and LAA | NRF allocation - £2m a year over last 4 years, allocated to supporting local programmes | The Employment Task Group – through Leaside Regeneration – have developed an initiative to create 6 community hubs offering local engagement and progression and linking the work of local voluntary groups. The task group are currently considering improvements to both the Council's and PCT's recruitment process to encourage better pathways to employment for workless residents |